Rank: Forum user
|
We are on a major highway scheme and have just had the pleasure of the clients H&S team for the past couple of days. They were looking at their own H&S. They have decided that the wearing of rigger boots will not be tolerated by there staff as '...the boots do not provide sufficient ankle support and may leave the company exposed to an excess of personal injury claims.' They will supply an approved boot. Me being a bit dim and it being Friday afternoon, I asked would they still be allowing their staff to wear Wellington boots? To which they replied - Yes. Is it me being dim but wellies provide even less ankle support than the now non acceptable rigger boots. Can some on please explain?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The wearing of rigger boots is often a bone of contention and I can understand why some clients or contractors would not want their workers to wear them from an ankle support perspective.
My current project involves both terrestrial and marine work and from the risk assessment conducted we concluded riggers were the correct choice for our marine workforce due to ease of removal should they fall into the ocean and laced up boots with ankle support was the correct choice for the rest.
IMHO if a R/A was conducted for the selection of appropriate footwear it would be pretty difficult to go against your clients decision.
On the subject of wellington boots and without being too presumptuous I would think the use of wellies would be for specific tasks such as pouring concrete or working in muddy filled excavations and not worn as a matter of course for the entire shift Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Network Rail has not permitted rigger boots for some time - NR/L2/OHS/021 issue 3 states explicitly "Rigger boots do not meet the requirements for ankle protection and shall not be used."
The question of wellington boots is a red herring, I think. It is reasonable to specify boots that best meet the particular hazards and if you're working in 6 inches of water, that will be wellington boots even though they don't support the ankle. That in no way suggests that if you're not working in 6 inches of water then boots without ankle support are as good as boots with.
NR/L2/OHS/021 has an exemption - any person working in water, mud or snow is exempt from "Footwear with ankle support, provided Wellington boots with protective toe-caps and mid-sole protection are worn"
We have one engineer who struggles with any sort of boot due to problems with the tendons up the back of his heel, which he attributes to years in rigger boots rubbing them.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have a contracting division working for Principals in both Highways and Railways and from our internal RA and with consideration for specific contract demands each worker has two sets of boots - laced with ankle protection for railway works due to the loose / moving nature of the track ballast and riggers for Highway Works so that there are no issues with tripping over / splitting laces the argument used in favour of riggers. Wet work situations are issued with quite high specification ergo not cheap wellingtons (specified to keep the cold out) that offer padding but not support around the ankle. In all other contracts the employees are free to choose which pair of their safety footwear to use (the majority prefer riggers).
What is described in the post - the principals H&S saying we are not allowed riggers is once again an insurance driven blanket PPE policy disguised under the pretext of Health an Safety. Yes there is research regarding ankle support but we do not all work on track ballast all of the time. If it were a true H&S matter there would be a boot specification not an "approved boot" being issued.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have a contracting division working for Principals in both Highways and Railways and from our internal RA and with consideration for specific contract demands each worker has two sets of boots - laced with ankle protection for railway works due to the loose / moving nature of the track ballast and riggers for Highway Works so that there are no issues with tripping over / splitting laces the argument used in favour of riggers. Wet work situations are issued with quite high specification ergo not cheap wellingtons (specified to keep the cold out) that offer padding but not support around the ankle. In all other contracts the employees are free to choose which pair of their safety footwear to use (the majority prefer riggers).
What is described in the post - the principals H&S saying we are not allowed riggers is once again an insurance driven blanket PPE policy disguised under the pretext of Health an Safety. Yes there is research regarding ankle support but we do not all work on track ballast all of the time. If it were a true H&S matter there would be a boot specification not an "approved boot" being issued.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi
Not sure anyone has considered this when I worked on a site Rigger boots were banned due to first aid reasons as well.
The client claimed that should anything fall into a rigger boot causing the foot to swell a rigger boot is one of the hardest materials to cut apart, whereas boots with laces could be cut through the lace to remove the boot and obviously wellies can be cut quite easily.
Might be slightly off at a tangent and if it is I apologise.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.